Billy Jack
04-13-2008, 5:29 PM
LAPD's Chief Bratton is issuing CCWS, 19 for a city with a legal population of 3.75 million plus people.

I would like to clear something up about CCW denials. If you apply to a department with an illegal CCW Policy or one which violates the applicants 14Th Amendment Rights, that denial can not be used in the future to deny the applicant without the new department or CLEO violating the applicants rights again. This is not a difficult concept to grasp but it seems to be keeping many people from applying. I am tired of hearing people say they would apply but they do not want a denial on their record.

Let me tell you all a little story. Billy Jack was denied by LAPD, LASD, SAPD and OCSD. I now have a CCW. Have had it since 1993. When I go for a renewal the denials, although listed on the DOJ Application, as required by law are never discussed. Why? Because the issuing department is aware they were illegal denials and they are astute enough not to go there.

Now if you have Good Cause, not just a desire, there is absolutely no reason not to apply.

As to Chief Bratton's 19 CCWS, we are in the process of reviewing them. The results of the review will not be posted but will be a part of a Federal Complaint against Bratton and LAPD. We are just waiting for one of the 10 denied applicants in the past 12 months to make a decision to sue in Federal court.

As to Bratton's two year CCW. It was issued in violation of state law and department policy. Several people violated state law in its issuance.

Billy Jack

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law...just a fight for survival!"californiaconcealedcarry.com

04-13-2008, 6:05 PM
Good luck there. With LAPD's history you would think that they would be more careful about their denials.

04-13-2008, 10:06 PM
"If you have Good Cause..." is the kicker. According to whom? Me? My mom? The Pope? Until there are OBJECTIVE STANDARDS there is no such thing if the person signing off on it doesn't want it to be. Or it can be anything if they want it to be. Sure it violates our rights...but so what? I don't see them in jail for it. They can do anything they want and its on our dime--both ways-- and win or lose the opposition loses NOTHING. They can keep on with business as usual whether they get beat once or twice or not. Lots of money gets flung around, a few righteous screams here and there, but they still win for 99.99%...just one fewer.

They're not scared. They're not losing their own money and they're not losing their jobs. Fix that problem.

Billy Jack
04-13-2008, 10:38 PM
OPINION NO. CR. 77/30 I.L. 'the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family or his employees)? Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant's obtaining a concealed weapon license.'

This decision was rendered By Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, August 23, 1977.

It has been the experience of TBJ members that the people who use the 'I do not want a denial on my record' excuse would not have Good Cause anywhere in California. If a person feels they have Good Cause, by all means apply. If not....................

'A man's got to help himself if he expects help from others.' Do not let fear hold you back Grasshopper.

Billy Jack


04-13-2008, 10:47 PM
My good cause is I live in a ghetto area and am an American Citizen...

I geuss I don't have good cause by those standards... :rolleyes:

04-13-2008, 11:15 PM
What BJ means when he says GC is some sort of "fair" standard, like, in a business which deals with making large cash deposits, that kind of thing. I presume he's looking for people with that kind of documented, clear, obvious-to-a-judge GC that are none the less sure to be denied by Chief Bratton.

"If you have Good Cause..." is the kicker. According to whom? Me? My mom? The Pope?

He means something that obviously, unambiguously puts you at greater risk, and yet does not indicate something bad about you (ie, living in the ghetto puts someone at risk but is not going to work.) Everyone would agree, a guy who owns a diamond dealer shop is at greater risk, and such people are regular targets. That's beyond argument, and that's what he's looking for so he can do an equal protection suit that might succeed.

I know, we here all think GC should mean, "defense of my self against violent attack", but that's not what he's referring to. He wants something he can use in court.

Putting it another way: according to the AG's opinion, the "good" in "good cause" means "at elevated risk", which is not the same as our normal meaning of good, which is, "the opposite of bad; desirable". And the "at elevated risk" must be documented, obvious, undeniable.

The SoCal Gunner
04-13-2008, 11:33 PM
Keep up the good work.

04-14-2008, 12:15 AM
Thank you for your work on this!

04-14-2008, 5:48 AM
IIRC, the Police Commission is the actual issuer in the city of Los Angeles. Any lawsuit should also include the members of the Los Angeles Police Commission who collude with the Chief to deny issuance. Wouldn't it also constitute Racketeering?

What would make sense and be more appropriate to remove the issuance from LEO Chief's and let the DOJ process and approve applications on a "Shall-issue" basis.

Billy Jack
04-14-2008, 6:13 AM
glockman19, Chief Bratton issues CCWS, not the Commission. If it is established during Discovery that they are part of the decision making process they would indeed be added. If you file in Federal court and name everyone in sight and are unable to make your case against them you will lose gravitas with the Judge and the Defense will move to dismiss them. I have said many times, getting a CCW is a Chess Game. You do not want to go into Federal court and begin by losing Defendants. You must keep your case focused and on track.

Bratton will be much easier to take down alone. He is not liked by the rank and file. He is an outsider. He is a politician. He is less than truthful when he speaks to media. He is an avid supporter of Special Order 40 and he wants to be the next Director of Homeland Security. If you think he is a danger to the Constitution now just wait and see if he gets that job.

I believe a 'bullet proof' CCW case, along with his illegal personal CCW, 2002-2004 will stop his career at the Chief level. I do not care if he reads this or one off his minions passes it along to him. Billy Jack fully intends to personally hand him a Federal 1983 suit naming him both in his official capacity as Chief and personally. Think that won't ruffle some feathers and get him some negative press? The Mick will be taken down by another Mick. Seems most appropriate.

Let's make it so!

Billy Jack


"When Chief Bratton breaks the law, then there isn't any law.....just a fight for survival!"